Refine params dtype #196
Refine params dtype #196
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks great, thanks a lot for your contribution!
There are a few parameters that are now inconsistent between the 11.50 and 10.40 versions - it would be wonderful if you could check whether the 11.50 values would break tests for the 10.40 files in the test suite.
Also, the LSV version 11.50 should really have a test file, ideally with multiple Ns. The rest we can live without.
| 211: ("<f8", "Q charge or discharge", "C"), | ||
| 217: ("<f4", "THD Ewe", "%"), | ||
| 241: ("<f4", "|E1|", "V"), | ||
| 242: ("<f4", "|E2|", "V"), | ||
| 271: ("<f4", "Phase(Z1)", "deg"), | ||
| 272: ("<f4", "Phase(Z2)", "deg"), | ||
| # 272: ("<f4", "Phase(Z2)", "deg"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had to change Phase(Z2) to Analog IN 1 for my testfile to pass. I could not find any Phase(Z2) in the mpt test files so I am not sure how to debug.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Strange. I think Analog IN 1 must be correct. Can you please delete the commented line?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The line is now deleted in 610a36c
First of all: Thank you very much for all the changes in PR #193. That was a wonderful surprise after the weekend.
As described in issue #195 I had a few minor problems for a few of my LSV, GEIS and PEIS files. These are fixed in this PR.
Currently I am trying to get non-confidential files as test files. I hope to be able to add these to the PR in the next few days. Or do you happen to have any matching files?
My adjustments are mainly the result of trial and error. Maybe you can have a look if the changes seem to make sense @PeterKraus.